Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. 46 of 1981, decided on 21st December, 1982.

--- S. 2 (al read with Sind Agricultural Supplies Organization Act (X of 1973), S. 8-Organization employees not civil servants within meaning of Sind Civil Servants Act, 1973-Operational Director Sind Agricultural Supplies Organization removing employee from service-Chairman upholding order-Organization body corporate- General direction and administration of Organization vesting in Board and Board guided on questions of policy only by Govern ment-Organization competent to take disciplinary action against officers and servants-Organization adopting Sind Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973 with modifications-Chairman (with approval of Board) competent to appoint officers-Terms and conditions of service regulated by Board - Held, employees of organisation not civil servants within meaning of S. 2 (a) of Service Tribunals Act, 1973 and Tribunal has no jurisdiction to provide relief to such servants.

Syed Fayyaz Hussain Qadri v. The Administrator, Lahore Municipal Corporation P L D 1972 Lab. 316 ; Shujauddin Ahmed v. Oil and Gas Development Corporation 1971 S C M R 566 ; 1962 P S C R 173 ; P L D 1967 Lab. 1251 ; P L D 1971 Lab. 748 ; P L D 1967 Lab. 796 and 1970 SCMR40rel.

Date of hearing : 13th December, 1982.

The appellant an ex-District Agriculture Supply Officer, Sind Agricultural Supplies Organization (S. A. S. O.) has preferred this appeal from an order passed by the Chairman S. A. S. O. upholding the order of his removal from service issued by the Operational Director S. A. S. O., dated 25-6-1981.

The learned Assistant Advocate-General on behalf of the respondents has raised a preliminary objection that this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear this appeal since the appellant is not a civil servant within the meaning of the Sind Civil Servants Act, 1973.

In Article 240 of the Constitution of 1973, it is provided that the conditions of service of persons in the service of Pakistan shall be determined in the case of a service of the Province and the post in connec tion with the affairs of the Province, by or under an Act of Provincial Assembly. The Provincial Assembly accordingly passed the Sind Civil Servants Act, 1973. Under section 2 (b) civil servant has been defined as under :-

"Civil servant means a person who is a member of the civil service of a Province or holds a civil post in connection with the affairs of the Province."

Admittedly the appellant is not a civil servant as a member of Provincial civil service. It has, however, been contended by Mr. Manzoor Ali Khan that he holds a civil post in connection with the affairs of the Province. It is, therefore, necessary to revert to the Act under which this Organization was created. S. A. S. O. Act of 1973 (Act X of 1973) was promulgated on the 29th of June, 1973. Under section 3 (2) it is provided that the Organization shall be a body corporate having perpetual succession and a common seal, with power, subject to the provisions of t6i. Act, to undertake work with regard to procuring and distributing through out the Province. Agriculture input namely, seeds and fertilizers (both indigenous and imported) and hold property both movable and immovable and shall by the said name sue and be sued. Section 4 provides that the general direction and administration of the Organization shall vest in a Board and the Board shall be guided, on questions of policy only, by the Government. Under section 8 the terms and conditions of service of the officers and servants of the Organization are to be provided by the regulations and Organization shall be competent to take disciplinary action against its officers and servants.

The S.A.S.O. instead of framing separate regulations has by a notifica tion dated 6-8-1981 adopted Sind Civil Servants (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1973 with suitable modifications. The Chairman S.A.S.O. under these rules is the authority for Grade-17) Officers and the Operational D Director is the Authorized Officer. The Chief Secretary has been substituted by the Chairman while the Government has been substituted by the Board.

The question, therefore, arises whether the employees of S. A. S. O. are in fact the employees of the Government so as to benefit by the safeguards provided under the Sind Civil Servants Act, 1973. A similar question had arisen in the case of Syed Fayyaz Hussain Qadiri v. The Administra tor, Lahore Municipal Corporation, decided by the Lahore High Court and reported in P L D 1972 Lah. 316. The appellant in that case was an employee of Municipal Corporation and he had been removed from service. It was argued that the Municipal Corporation acts in connec tion with the affairs of the Province and its employees perform the functions under the direction and control of the Government. It was held that there is distinction in cases of employees of a statutory body acting in connection with the affairs of the Provincial Government like Universities, Boards of Education, WAPDA, etc. The terms and conditions of the employees of these statutory bodies are regulated by a statute or the statutory rules and the employees work under contracts. Therefore, the employees' remedy is by way of a suit under the ordinary law of master and servant. However, if an employee of such a corporate body can show that an order dismissing or removing him from service has been passed in violation of a statute or the rules, he can invoke the juris diction of a High Court under Article 98 of the Constitution.

It was observed in the course of this judgment that the Municipal Corporation doubtless acts directions and control. The fact that the Government may have some control on the Municipal Committee in respect of some broad lines of some policy will make no difference because it does not function as Government department and as an employer, it has an entity of its own distinct from that of the Government. The employees of the Corporation are not therefore the employees of the Government. In Shujauddin Ahmed v. Oil and Gas Development Corporation (1971SCMR566) it was held the consistent view of this Court hitherto has been that the employees of such statutory corporations do not acquire status of a Government servant nor are the guarantees given by the Constitution applicable in their case. Similar view was taken in 1962 P S C R 173, P L D 1967 Lah. 1251, P L D 1971 Lah. 748, P L D 1967 Lah. 796 and 1970 S C M R 40.

The appointment of the officers including the appellant under the S. A. S. O. Act lies with the Chairman who -can appoint them with the approval of the Board and the officers are not appointed by the Govern ment. Thus the officers are appointed by S. A. S. O. and they exercise powers under the directions of S. A. S. Ca. while their terms and conditions of service are regulated by the Board and not by the Government. The mere fact that the Government formulates the policy to guide the Board of S. A. S. O. will not alter the situation.

In the result the objections are allowed and it is held that the emplo yees of S. A. S. O. are not civil-servants within the meaning of section 2 (a) of the Sind Service Tribunals Act, 1973, and the Tribunal has, therefore, no jurisdiction to provide relief of such servants, employed on contractual basis. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. No order is made as to costs under the circumstances of the case.

Appeal dismissed

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.